Lyall, who have endeavoured with marked ability and sympathy to explain the mystery to them.  But Mr. Mallik now explains to us that no such gratitude is due, for the reason why Asia is so often misunderstood is not on account of any difficulties attendant on comprehension, but because those who have paid special attention to the subject are “persons whose nature or training or self-interest leads them not to wish the understanding to take place.”  Whether Mr. Mallik has done much to lighten the prevailing darkness and to explain the East to the West is perhaps somewhat doubtful, but it is quite certain that he has done his utmost to explain to those of his countrymen who are conversant with the English language the attitude which, in his opinion, they should adopt towards Westerns and Western civilisation.  In one of the sweeping generalities in which his work abounds, Mr. Mallik says with great truth, that “however manners may differ ... nothing is gained by nursing a feeling of animosity.”  It is to be regretted that Mr. Mallik has not himself acted on the wise principle which he here enunciates.  He has, however, not done so.  Under the familiar garb of a friend who indulges in an excess of candour he has made a number of observations which, whether true or false, are eminently calculated to inflame that racial animosity which it is the duty of every well-wisher of India to endeavour by every means in his power to allay.  He makes a lengthy and elaborate comparison between East and West, in which every plague-spot in European civilisation is carefully catalogued.  Every ulcer in Western life is probed.  Every possible sore in the connection between the European and Asiatic is made to rankle.  On the other hand, with the cries of the Christians massacred at Adana still ringing in our ears, Mr. Mallik, forgetful apparently of the fact that the Turk is an Asian, tells us that “Asia, typical of the East, looks upon all races and creeds with absolute impartiality,” and, further, that “gentleness and consideration are the peculiar characteristics of the East, as overbearing and rudeness, miscalled independence, and not unfrequently deserving to be called insolence, are products of the West.”

But it is the word Imperialism which more especially excites Mr. Mallik’s wrath.  In the first place, he altogether denies the existence of an “imperial race,” being convinced of its non-existence by the strangely inconclusive argument that “if a race is made by nature imperial, every member of that race must be imperial too and equally able to rule.”  In the second place, he points out that the results which flow from the Imperial idea are in all respects deplorable.  The East had “always believed that mankind could be made saints and philosophers,” but the West, represented by Imperialism, stepped in and “shattered its belief.”  The West, as shown by the deference now paid to Japan, “values the bloodthirsty propensities much more than humane activities.”